Delhi High Court
Nathu Ram vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 9 September, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITON (CIVIL) NO. 6603/2011
% Date of order: 9th September, 2011
NATHU RAM ....Petitioner
Through Mr. Anil Mittal & Mr. Amritansh
Batheja, Advocates.
VERSUS
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION .....Respondent
Through Ms. Avnish Ahlawat & Mr. Dushyant
Arora, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
SANJIV KHANNA, J.:
Learned counsel for the petitioner-Nathu Ram, submits
that the petitioner was not well and was referred to Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital by the DTC Medical Board vide
prescription slip dated 20th March, 2008. It is submitted that the
departmental authorities and the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench (the tribunal, for short) have ignored the medical
prescriptions and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the
tribunal dated 15th April, 2011 dismissing O.A. No. 3483/2010
and the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority
and upheld by the appellate authority deserve to be set aside.
W.P. © No. 6603/2011 Page 1 of 4
2. We have examined the said contention as well as the
prescription slips, which have been placed on record. The
petitioner was a driver with the respondent-Delhi Transport
Corporation. He had remained absent from 2nd January, 2008 to
30th June, 2009 without prior intimation and permission. The
total period of absence is 509 days. He had initially submitted a
leave application with medical certificate for eight days and
thereafter another leave application for twelve days without any
medical certificate. The second application was rejected by the
competent authority. Thereafter, he did not submit any leave
application. As per the medical prescription place on record, the
petitioner was examined in the medical unit of the Delhi
Transport Corporation on 20th March, 2008 and was referred to
another hospital in respect of injuries suffered by him. The
aforesaid prescription does not refer to any psychiatric ailment
and does not explain the period of absence from January till
March, 2008. There are three more medical prescriptions in
respect of injury and treatment in the Department of
Orthopaedics dated 19th April, 2008, 26th April, 2008 and 20th
June, 2008. The subsequent prescriptions do not show any
psychiatric ailment. It is not understood why and for what
W.P. © No. 6603/2011 Page 2 of 4
reason the petitioner did not apply for leave and submit these
prescriptions. For the psychiatric ailment or vertigo or sleeping
problem relied upon by the petitioner, the medical prescriptions
begin from March, 2009 onwards. There is time gap in the said
medical prescriptions and after March, 2009, the next
prescription available is of June, 2009 and then of January,
2010. The tribunal as well as the departmental authorities have
also recorded that out of 23 entries in the Annual Confidential
Reports, there were 22 adverse entries on account of habitual
absence. The petitioner had suffered penalties on 17 occasions
, out of which 12 penalties related to absenteeism.
3. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner had remained
absent unauthorisedly without intimation for a long period of 509
days. The respondents are providing public transport and if their
employees remains absent for a long time, their services suffer
and the public is put to inconvenience. Indifference to work
discipline and lack of commitment is apparent. In the present
case, disciplinary enquiry was not initiated immediately but after
waiting for sufficiently long period and the authorities have also
taken into consideration the punishments awarded to the
petitioner and the recording in the ACRs.
W.P. © No. 6603/2011 Page 3 of 4
4. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any
merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA,J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SEPTEMBER 9, 2011
VKRs
